Rejecting The Bullies

You are here

I know there’s an usually unwritten rule about commenting on commenting in the digital realm. I am sure it borders on some amorphous definition of meta, a word that I think is actually supposed to be a suffix and that I am definitely sure lacks a cohesive definition, but I’ve never been much for rules or ceremony. So, I’ll be blunt. The vast majority of comments on the internet are useless at best and destructive at worst.

I think this is similar to what internet pariah of the month, Denis Dyack, meant when he said internet forums need to be changed. Like many of you, I reacted initially to his comments with the knee-jerk “Ohhhh, Denis,” but as I’ve let the concept soak in the brine of my dissatisfaction with the vocal population of gamers on the web, I find myself increasingly inclined to agree.

To bemoan the horror of net discourse is certainly nothing particularly new. I have spent any number of hours reading vile and venom aimed at my own words, most often when I have said something unapologetically that runs counter to popularly held views such as: Piracy is bad for PC games; Vanguard isn’t a very good game; I’m looking forward to Fallout 3 and sometimes EA isn’t all bad.

I imagine should this missive break beyond the bonds of our oddly functional community, I will suffer similarly.

The democratization of the web – a term that means very little but sounds patriotic enough to demand respect – has installed an illusion of a digital first amendment that protects speech no matter how poorly spelled or stupid. Never mind that providing a comment section on a private website entitles nobody to a big helping spoonful of nothing, we are operating in a digital society that doesn’t just believe that everyone is entitled to an opinion – a tenet I grudgingly concede – but that they are entitled to express that opinion wherever they see fit.

The result of that is the web as we see it today, where the value of smartly considered discussion is weighted equally with loud and angry voices that offer nothing save new and creative ways to suggest a person self-impregnate. The alpha personalities of the web, cloaked in anonymity and set loose in this unrestrained medium, are a driving force in the lowered level of discourse on the web and, I think, a factor in the sad state of online journalism, dialogue and even product.

I am with Dyack in thinking the reign of the terminally loud and annoying has crossed the threshold from being irritating to being destructive. Whether they represent a minority or majority I can’t say, but they have become the dictators of warped common sense. They drive the discussions within and without the gaming sphere. Across what seems a dangerously wide segment of our culture, it is the hysterical and furious who dictate the tone of our shared discussions.

Odd as this may sound; I think part of the problem is the purity of the mode of online discussion. Understand that when I call the discussion pure, I’m speaking about the undistilled nature of comments. With anonymity, lack of repercussion and most importantly unfettered access to the web, people are free to shed the bounds of common decency, a sick beast itself, and respond in their most basic natures.

This is not a good thing.

I’ve said before that the bounds of our social contracts are the barriers between a functioning society and bashing each others’ heads in with rocks. Having to take responsibility for your words and actions are good things, and destroying those barriers can seem democratic from a broad view, but in practice just unlocks the checks blocking the most aggressive and opens an express lane to chaos.

What I’d really like to see, in many ways, is a system where people are not invisible. But that’s not practical. An alternative would be for more organizations create a more comprehensive and social approach to moderation, but that demands man-hours and resources. If anything, rampant internet malfeasance is a direct result of convenience, and again this seems equally unlikely.

So, the solution seems to be to reduce the accessibility of feedback. Interactivity does not necessarily need to be the holy grail of online reporting. Oftentimes, feedback seems out of place, and can swiftly become a distraction or even a detriment to the hosting organization. Do we really need to open the floor to every clown with an agenda to inject his or her venom? Does every place on the web necessarily need to follow up content with open mic night at the Tourettes Palace?

Why do we allow the sense of entitlement to persist that it is perfectly ok for any malcontent with an opinion and functioning fingers to walk into our online house and start hurling dirt on the walls? It seems counter intuitive to me, even self-destructive to be the vehicle for your own criticism, particularly criticisms that is misinformed, angry, motivated by alternative agendas and barely literate.

I don’t really need to know what Skizzbucket221 thinks about the issues of the day. It doesn’t make the web any less democratic. Shutting down Skizzy’s vitriol in our house doesn’t curtail his freedom to fire up his own blog. But, it does take away his visibility in a place like Joystiq, Slashdot or CNN, and forces him to build up a following on his own, which is where the real democracy is at.

Comments

Pages

Keep in mind, too, it's not just Certis's moderating that keeps things in place. For one, our community at large is older. The vast majority of vitriol spewed forth on the web comes from overenthusiastic teenagers and middle-schoolers with time to waste.

Two, as a gaming community with a large focus on multiplayer, a lot of us "know" each other. The anonymizing factors that characterize other open discussion forums on the web remain overwhelmingly anonymous. Aside from the fact that we reveal a lot of character on the boards themselves, we've heard each others' voices, and our avatars act as faces. We recognize each other.

I've always found comment rating systems to be useful (preferably ones that allow you to sort by rating if you want). From a commentators perspective, you are rewarded with anonymous internet love for good commentary. From a readers perspective it makes it easy to find the better comments - and, hey, if you want the soul crushing experience of reading the rest, you are free to do so.

I'm also a big fan of an "Editors Selection" (like on the NY Times website), where moderators highlight the most interesting comments.

As much as I enjoy a good moderated discussion forum, I'm having trouble seeing how the 'wildlands' are a significant problem. It seems fairly easy to ignore the silliness out there when I want to, and it can provide occasional entertainment value in moments of boredom. Giving the baboons places to congregate also makes moderation in baboon-intolerant environments less work-intensive.

I'd agree with that. I had a big problem with Denis Dyack's remarks about NeoGAF, not because I disagree that the internet needs places with a raised level of intelligent discourse, but because he seemed to want to force it on whatever specific forum he happens to read. Ignoring the fact that he was trying to hawk a product through the forum and is far from a neutral party, he doesn't seem to understand that there are places he can go (like here) if he doesn't want that kind of environment. NeoGAF caters specifically to the circus of public opinion, and honestly, I'm kind of glad that it exists, in the same way that I'm glad more moderated and insightful communities exist.

The primary job of any good moderator is to remind people they're communicating with other human beings.

This is almost a revolutionary take on moderation. Most sites see the role of the moderator as something akin to a Lawman, out for the protection of the forum. If they can demean and belittle their wards in the process (getting that really cool "mod burn") then oh, it's so worth it. I guess my point is that moderators largely put forum rules above the idea that there's any sort of person at the other end. It's easier to imagine everyone as some kind of slovenly recluse peppered with cheeto dust.

I've been thinking a lot about this lately. While viewing various News website blogs and commentaries it has struck me that the divide between "the Left" and "the Right" has never been so fiercely contested and starkly realized as it is today. This view was mostly brought on by the contrary and hateful nature of individuals comments.

Maybe I am wrong. Maybe what is causing this gulf is not a growing chasm, but instead a lack of moderation... that reminder - as Certis said - that as a large group of human beings participating in a Democracy, we owe each other the minimum understanding of one another's humanity and the respect that is due that.

Thanks for your excellent site and podcast guys! Like many others have said, I listen and visit because of the sense of community. I now realize that I also welcome the sense of humanity as well.

Well said. It amazes me that it has to be said at all, actually, and I realize as I add my voice to the chorus of approval that all that really amounts to is yelling "damn kids! get off my lawn!"

I don't understand the motivation to be a dick online, or even in person. What profit do you get by making someone else feel or look bad? Are people really so empty that they have to call someone gay in a forum, or shout a racial epithet in your ear between rounds?

I don't know what the right thing to do in those situations are outside of calling in the banhammer or hitting mute, but I should not have to, and apparently Darwinism works too slowly.

Keep in mind, too, it's not just Certis's moderating that keeps things in place. For one, our community at large is older. The vast majority of vitriol spewed forth on the web comes from overenthusiastic teenagers and middle-schoolers with time to waste.

While I agree with you that this is a factor, I will point out that you'd be surprised what some "older" people post on the internet. They might not be as prone towards vitriolic BS as teens, but that doesn't stop some people.

Sigh, I have a low estimation of humanity.

The brain you stole, Fritz. Think of it. The brain of a dead man waiting to live again in a body I made with my own hands!

I'm actually a big fan of how SomethingAwful decided to solve this problem: Charge for access.

I think SA's been remarkably lax in their moderation in the last few years. It's quite the cesspool of mediocrity.

The real problem at the heart of Something Awful is the combined might of the Helldump and FYAD. For those that aren't familiar, FYAD is the "wildlands" of their forum, an insular place where in-jokes thrive and outsiders are shunned. Jackassery rules, and people obsess over their e-cred, despite their outward call that "the internet is serious business". The Helldump is really sad, a place where one can go and post e-hate directed towards a particular poster.

e.g. Thread title: "Foobar Panda: The smartest ivy-league dropout in the Goonited States of Amerikka"
Thread contents: meticulously gathered posts from said user

The SA brass started these spots up in an attempt to curb flaming and fighting, but I think it's really just allowed a particular culture to flourish and cross over to other areas.

Revel in the sheer improbability that in a universe of such mind-shattering emptiness, you have someone to love...-Coldstream
They stopped being meaningful to me as devices a long time ago, and now they've stopped being meaningful as things-ClockworkHous

I'm actually a big fan of how SomethingAwful decided to solve this problem: Charge for access. They have what amounts to a one-time fee for access to their forums. Anyone who acts like a dick still gets kicked, but it takes a special kind of asshat to pay for the privilege of being kicked multiple times. Lowtax gave a speech about it at a University a few years ago about that decision as well as other internet humor related stuff that was really awesome. It's probably on youtube by now.
Granted, there still needs to be moderation, but it's probably amazingly less man-power than would normally be required for a forum of that size.

Great article Elysium, I think the online bullying and most forum threads on other sites going straight to hell after 4 posts, devolving into rampant name calling and personal attacks is probably one of the reasons a lot of people like me don't even visit forums or leave comments in the first place. This is the one site where I feel comfortable enough to post my thoughts or comments without being ridiculed by some 13 year old who lives in his mom's basement and whose life goals are to marry sonic the hedgehog. I mean I love 1up but would never venture into those forums.....Anyway quick someone call me a name so I can go back to lurking.

For one, our community at large is older. The vast majority of vitriol spewed forth on the web comes from overenthusiastic teenagers and middle-schoolers with time to waste.

I disagree. I think you'd be painfully surprised at the disparity between age and maturity. It's commonplace to assume that the problems are the young, but there a sizable amount of evidence that we're not talking about 16 year olds but 30 year olds.

The anonymizing factors that characterize other open discussion forums on the web remain overwhelmingly anonymous. Aside from the fact that we reveal a lot of character on the boards themselves, we've heard each others' voices, and our avatars act as faces. We recognize each other.

Well, that is part of the point, and I think a result more than a factor. I think the reason we have a community is because of the decisions made early in the process, years before anyone knew each other or played together. In the absence of chaos the natural tendency is to become cohesive. That's the nice thing about humanity, if you put it in the right conditions, turn all the poles facing the proper way, they come together in the absence of a impetus to repel.

The thing about smart people is they seem like crazy people to dumb people -- Thing I saw on the Internet

The SA brass started these spots up in an attempt to curb flaming and fighting, but I think it's really just allowed a particular culture to flourish and cross over to other areas.

I think the fact that SomethingAwful is an "edgy" humor site also has a lot to do with the fact that they allow people to be assholes if it's funny. Which I can often appreciate, because I really don't believe that the internet should be taken seriously, but it does lead to a forum culture that becomes insular and is really hypocritically self-important.

Still, though, some good stuff has come out of that place. Like Yahtzee and Shawn Elliot.

Aeropause (disclosure: I write there) recently implemented IntenseDebate, which is a commenting system with its own centralized identity and points system. I'm a little leery on ownership grounds. I'm pretty sure the IntenseDebate site database keeps your comments, not your own, since they sell the ability to moderate all your blogs' comments in one spot (if you have multiple blogs) so leaving the service via software upgrade (say if the next version of your blog software does most of what ID does and you want to switch) might be hard to do.

It still allows anonymous commenting, so that doesn't solve the problem, but when it's much faster than ordinary commenting by being an in-place widget not requiring a page reload and it remembers who you are and carries your rating across all sites using IntenseDebate, then the ease-of-use might just make it so easy you don't want to bother to sign out and type everything as a new user.

But if someone wants to be a griefer they'll just spam themselves a new identity and do it that way.

Keep in mind, too, it's not just Certis's moderating that keeps things in place. For one, our community at large is older. The vast majority of vitriol spewed forth on the web comes from overenthusiastic teenagers and middle-schoolers with time to waste.

While I agree with you that this is a factor, I will point out that you'd be surprised what some "older" people post on the internet. They might not be as prone towards vitriolic BS as teens, but that doesn't stop some people.

Each community supports itself as it sees fit. At GWJ, we all are reminded sometimes that this is a 1) Gaming Community and 2) a MATURE Community. However, this is GWJ. This is not every internet forum, nor should it be. If we were to enforce maturity across the web then we start to put bounds and limits on it. There are people out there who want and even need the type of hate spued garbage that composes some other internet forums. I imagine from some it's theraputic, for others it's a way of (internet) life. However, to call angry people on a forum "destructive" raises a red flag in my opinion. They are no more destrutive or harmful than any other means of communication.

Remember, there is no free speech in a moderated forum, only the illusion of free speech. As long as your speech is inline with the values of the forum you are in (and the moderators who run it), then you are free to say what you like. If I wanted to spue hateful angry garbage all day, there are forums I can go to and do so. So, go to the communities you enjoy, let those communities be governed by their own standards, and we can all have what we want.

I agree that responsibility for words and actions, and social contracts, are important in a society. However, the community of the internet has decided to forgo these traditional ideals in order to haev the ultimate freedom of ideas. Some good, some garbage, but they all come out.

In the end, I guess I would disagree on principle. I believe the overall value of being able to express whatever you want outweighs anyone elses opinion of what they think should be expressed. If a person is expressing those ideals in a manner that is not appropriate for the place they are in, then they need to relocate, and the moderators of that place will usually inform the person to do so quickly. If you're bothered by the way a place behaves (lfor example, Dyack and Neogaf) then stop going there. Just ignore it. If you don't visit these sites, they functionally don't exsit in your world. While that is a bit harder for someone in the limelight, there is also the penalty of "if you are popular, you will be discussed, for better or for worse". For the rest of us, it's just as simple as not clicking over.

Great article. This touches on something we wrestle with every day over at the site that I help moderate. We've been going strong for years, with clear rules on moderation ("don't be a jerk" and "don't write anything you wouldn't say in front of your grandma" being the main operative ones), and the community has grown steadily. With that growth, though, come people who just live to stomp on others' joy, and with the coming of D&D 4E, things have devolved in tone, with the hate (on all sides!) requiring us to get firmer with moderation. Which brings on more hate in certain sorts of people...

We do what we can, and it's still a lot better than most boards, but with tens of thousands of users, even eight or ten moderators can't see every thread.

It's a problem that will continue to grow in coming years, I think, as more people get used to communicating with a computer or cell phone screen rather than face-to-face, and forgetting, as you say, that there is another human being on the other side.

...to call angry people on a forum "destructive" raises a red flag in my opinion. They are no more destrutive or harmful than any other means of communication.

While I understand and respect what you mean, I have to disagree. An argument, in the sense of intelligent debate, can and does produce positive results. The kind of mindless negation that so often abounds in open forums gets in the way of that positive results and, in fact, destroys the environment in which they can germinate and grow.

...go to the communities you enjoy, let those communities be governed by their own standards, and we can all have what we want.

If you're bothered by the way a place behaves (lfor example, Dyack and Neogaf) then stop going there. Just ignore it. If you don't visit these sites, they functionally don't exsit in your world.

Yes and No. If we are bullied or abused into leaving a forum isn't that in itself a form of moderation? I do not claim a "right" to post - or even lurk - on any given forum. That does not mean that it is okay for someone else to push me out.
Elysium is correct, maturity is the key here. A "maturity moderator" may be exactly what is needed to keep many forums open for debate.

The good thing about the Internet is the possibility to filter what you want to see. An educated mind will often stay away from places where asshaberdashery is rule. And there's always some sort of safe haven, like GWJ here.

I very much agree with Elysium's conclusion. They can cry and be jerks all day long, every single day in the year, as long as you pay them no mind they'll eventually a) shut up or b) start up their own site and realize that unintelligent venom generates really poor page views.

Let them feast on their own crap, that's my motto. Eventually, they implode.

To Shoal07's point, well, he's a robot and we don't care what filthy AI's think. I, for one, do not welcome our robot overlords.

All the same I will say that it is tempting to simply say I'm content with GWJ and could tell the rest of the Internet to take a hike, at least in the sense of internet forums.

Is that really correct though? I think part of the problem I have playing on-line is that we have made it sort of accepted to be a dick. The Internet is too big to control and there will always be places that will cater to such people, but that doesn't mean a virtual line in the sand shouldn't be drawn. That not only do we not approve of such behavior here but that we don't approve of it anywhere and that just because you can be kind, patient, and thoughtful at GWJ doesn't mean you get a free pass to go into drunken frat-boy mode the second you hit X-Box Live. As someone once told me "If someone is nice to you but a jerk to the waiter, that person is a jerk".

I have better things to do than be some on-line busybody, but I certainly don't think it's ok that there are places out there where people can continue to feed each other their constant ejaculatory self-important destructive diatribes.

One of the things that has impressed me about this site is Certis' unabashed yet judicious use of his moderator role. At first I thought the community was just accidentally awesome but now it is clear that having a guardian who takes the idea of protecting the decancy and dignaty of the site and it's members is a hugely important part of the equation. Indeed, moderation is an important tool for keeping the GWJ community we know and love stable and sane.

Of course I have never been on the receiving end of that ban-hammer so I've never had reason to resent it.

...to call angry people on a forum "destructive" raises a red flag in my opinion. They are no more destrutive or harmful than any other means of communication.

While I understand and respect what you mean, I have to disagree. An argument, in the sense of intelligent debate, can and does produce positive results. The kind of mindless negation that so often abounds in open forums gets in the way of that positive results and, in fact, destroys the environment in which they can germinate and grow.

...go to the communities you enjoy, let those communities be governed by their own standards, and we can all have what we want.

If you're bothered by the way a place behaves (lfor example, Dyack and Neogaf) then stop going there. Just ignore it. If you don't visit these sites, they functionally don't exsit in your world.

Yes and No. If we are bullied or abused into leaving a forum isn't that in itself a form of moderation? I do not claim a "right" to post - or even lurk - on any given forum. That does not mean that it is okay for someone else to push me out.
Elysium is correct, maturity is the key here. A "maturity moderator" may be exactly what is needed to keep many forums open for debate.

A forum is not always a place for debate. They can be for anything. If you're bullied out of Neogaf, come here, where there are no bullies. My point? Each community is run differently, go where you belong, and ignore the rest. I don't believe every community needs maturity. It would be like (sorry, I can't think of a better analogy) saying all (illicit internet photography sites) must be missionary, man/woman, only. Sure, that's out there, but there's a huge variety of "other stuff". Some you wouldn't look at unless it was a dare. For others, that same material might be exactly what they need.

What about intra-community moderation? Eg, when 'ole Skizz makes a post, some number of other community members are asked whether the post has value & should be kept. If enough of them concur, the post stays. As a member, Skizz will be occasionally asked to moderate the postings of others, as well. Moderation judgments would have to be a matter of public record, so that overly aggressive moderators can be chastised for it.

This is expensive, sure, but the expense is distributed evenly over the community as a whole.

A forum is not always a place for debate. They can be for anything. If you're bullied out of Neogaf, come here, where there are no bullies. My point? Each community is run differently, go where you belong, and ignore the rest. I don't believe every community needs maturity. It would be like (sorry, I can't think of a better analogy) saying all (illicit internet photography sites) must be missionary, man/woman, only. Sure, that's out there, but there's a huge variety of "other stuff". Some you wouldn't look at unless it was a dare. For others, that same material might be exactly what they need.

For some reason Clerks 2 springs to mind.

Excellently Debated!

Seriously though, I agree with you that GWJ is a haven amongst Forums.

What about intra-community moderation? Eg, when 'ole Skizz makes a post, some number of other community members are asked whether the post has value & should be kept. If enough of them concur, the post stays. As a member, Skizz will be occasionally asked to moderate the postings of others, as well. Moderation judgments would have to be a matter of public record, so that overly aggressive moderators can be chastised for it.

This is expensive, sure, but the expense is distributed evenly over the community as a whole.

As someone who's "overseen" such a system, it is really ripe for abuse. The members start to become ... "clique-ish" ... in their squelching of each other.

Hypatian wrote:

Stone thongs are almost as important to preventing the spread of elves as lead toys are.

What about intra-community moderation? Eg, when 'ole Skizz makes a post, some number of other community members are asked whether the post has value & should be kept. If enough of them concur, the post stays. As a member, Skizz will be occasionally asked to moderate the postings of others, as well. Moderation judgments would have to be a matter of public record, so that overly aggressive moderators can be chastised for it.

This is expensive, sure, but the expense is distributed evenly over the community as a whole.

An interesting solution, but it sounds like it would be a bit unwieldy in practice. It also seems to be predicated on the philosophy that distributing the work load of a few specialists onto a large quantity of lay-people is a functional way to preserve democracy. I would argue that that is a fallacy and that the importance of specialists cannot be overstated (although specialization of roles does bring with it its own problems of abuse).

I have to confess that I had never posted on any forum on the internet prior to finding GWJ. I didn't feel comfortable on relating my ideas in most cases because of the immaturity/rudeness of many of the commentors. I felt like my views would be unfairly mocked/dismissed and they would just be lost in all of the noise otherwise. I thank you for this safe haven and I enjoy the opportunities for gaming and discussion it has provided me.

On a side not, the stupid filter is not infallable because it believes that the statement "lolz i are super 1337" is "...not likely to be stupid." I figured lolz and 1337 would be red flags enough.